Trump the Peace Candidate

With Democrats howling that Vladimir Putin hacked into and leaked those 19,000 DNC emails to help Trump, the Donald had a brainstorm: Maybe the Russians can retrieve Hillary Clinton’s lost emails.

Not funny, and close to “treasonous,” came the shocked cry.

Trump then told the New York Times that a Russian incursion into Estonia need not trigger a U.S. military response.

Even more shocking. By suggesting the U.S. might not honor its NATO commitment, under Article 5, to fight Russia for Estonia, our foreign policy elites declaimed, Trump has undermined the security architecture that has kept the peace for 65 years.

More interesting, however, was the reaction of Middle America. Or, to be more exact, the nonreaction. Americans seem neither shocked nor horrified. What does this suggest?

Behind the war guarantees America has issued to scores of nations in Europe, the Mideast and Asia since 1949, the bedrock of public support that existed during the Cold War has crumbled.

We got a hint of this in 2013. Barack Obama, claiming his “red line” against any use of poison gas in Syria had been crossed, found he had no public backing for air and missile strikes on the Assad regime.

The country rose up as one and told him to forget it. He did.

We have been at war since 2001. And as one looks on the ruins of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and adds up the thousands dead and wounded and trillions sunk and lost, can anyone say our War Party has served us well?

On bringing Estonia into NATO, no Cold War president would have dreamed of issuing so insane a war guarantee.

Eisenhower refused to intervene to save the Hungarian rebels. JFK refused to halt the building of the Berlin Wall. LBJ did nothing to impede the Warsaw Pact’s crushing of the Prague Spring. Reagan never considered moving militarily to halt the smashing of Solidarity.

Were all these presidents cringing isolationists?

Rather, they were realists who recognized that, though we prayed the captive nations would one day be free, we were not going to risk a world war, or a nuclear war, to achieve it. Period.

In 1991, President Bush told Ukrainians that any declaration of independence from Moscow would be an act of “suicidal nationalism.”

Today, Beltway hawks want to bring Ukraine into NATO. This would mean that America would go to war with Russia, if necessary, to preserve an independence Bush I regarded as “suicidal.”

Have we lost our minds?

The first NATO supreme commander, General Eisenhower, said that if U.S. troops were still in Europe in 10 years, NATO would be a failure. In 1961, he urged JFK to start pulling U.S. troops out, lest Europeans become military dependencies of the United States.

Was Ike not right? Even Barack Obama today riffs about the “free riders” on America’s defense.

Is it really so outrageous for Trump to ask how long the U.S. is to be responsible for defending rich Europeans who refuse to conscript the soldiers or pay the cost of their own defense, when Eisenhower was asking that same question 55 years ago?

In 1997, geostrategist George Kennan warned that moving NATO into Eastern Europe “would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era.” He predicted a fierce nationalistic Russian response.

Was Kennan not right? NATO and Russia are today building up forces in the eastern Baltic where no vital U.S. interests exist, and where we have never fought before — for that very reason.

There is no evidence Russia intends to march into Estonia, and no reason for her to do so. But if she did, how would NATO expel Russian troops without air and missile strikes that would devastate that tiny country?

And if we killed Russians inside Russia, are we confident Moscow would not resort to tactical atomic weapons to prevail? After all, Russia cannot back up any further. We are right in her face.

On this issue Trump seems to be speaking for the silent majority and certainly raising issues that need to be debated.

How long are we to be committed to go to war to defend the tiny Baltic republics against a Russia that could overrun them in 72 hours?

When, if ever, does our obligation end? If it is eternal, is not a clash with a revanchist and anti-American Russia inevitable?

Are U.S. war guarantees in the Baltic republics even credible?

If the Cold War generations of Americans were unwilling to go to war with a nuclear-armed Soviet Union over Hungary and Czechoslovakia, are the millennials ready to fight a war with Russia over Estonia?

Needed now is diplomacy.

The trade-off: Russia ensures the independence of the Baltic republics that she let go. And NATO gets out of Russia’s face.

Should Russia dishonor its commitment, economic sanctions are the answer, not another European war.

NATO is not “in Russia’s face.” Poland, the Baltics, Ukraine, cannot help being Russia’s neighbor. I find it curious that Buchanan counsels these countries that they have to learn to get along with Russia. Why not counsel Russia to learn to get along with them? If Buchanan desires cooperation with Russia, why not use NATO as the framework for that cooperation? That’s the way things were headed when Russia signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act.

After the experience of Crimea, the economic sanctions Buchanan recommends will do little to assuage.

#2 Comment By Liam On August 2, 2016 @ 7:47 am

Wishful thinking that Mr. Trump represents the lesser risk of foreign policy interventionism. His profound insecurity is, history tells us over and over again, the most vulnerable to having to prove itself by reckless and foolish assertions of power.

#3 Comment By Jack On August 2, 2016 @ 7:56 am

Thank you Pat. I was sickened by Eleonor Clift’s intellectual dishonesty and cowardice when she refused to answer your repeated question about whether the USA should go to war with Russia over these tiny Baltic states. All she could muster in her feeble leftist mind was “nobody is going to war”. What a historical dingbat she is.

#4 Comment By Kurt Gayle On August 2, 2016 @ 8:52 am

A brilliant, vitally important essay, Pat!

Three days ago STEPHEN F. COHEN, American scholar of Russian studies at both Princeton and New York Universities was interviewed on SMERCONISH (CNN, July 30).

Stephen Cohen:

“…We’re approaching a Cuban Missile Crisis nuclear confrontation with Russia, both along Russia’s borders and possibly over Syria. There is absolutely no discussion, no debate, about this in the American media — including, forgive me, on CNN.

“Then along comes (unexpectedly) Donald Trump, who says something that suggests he wants to end the new Cold War, cooperate with Russia in various places. What we used to call detente, and now –astonishingly– the media is full of what only can be called neo-McCarthyite charges that he is a Russian agent, that he is a Manchurian candidate, and that he is Putin’s client.

“So the real danger is what’s being done to our own political process. This is a moment when there should be, in a presidential year, a debate. Because Mrs. Clinton’s position on Russia seems to be very different [than Mr. Trump’s], has been a long time.

“Trump…seems to want a new American policy toward Russia. And considering the danger, I think we as American citizens, deserve that debate, and not what we are given in the media today…

“Let’s take the position you just set out. That Putin wants to end the independence in Baltic states. There is no evidence for that. None whatsoever…Trump said early on, he wanted to know, 60 years after its foundation, what was NATO’s mission today. 100 policy wonks in Washington since the end of the Soviet Union, 25 years ago, have asked the same question. Is NATO an organization in search of a mission? For example, it’s a mission for the last 20 years was to expand ever closer to Russia. So people have now asked why isn’t it fighting international terrorism? That’s a legitimate question –but we don’t debate it. We don’t ask it.

“We just say, oh, Trump wants to abandon NATO. I don’t defend Trump. Trump raises questions. And instead of giving answer to the substance of the question, we denounce him as some kind of Kremlin agent. That’s bad for our politics, but still worse, given the danger we’re not addressing it.”

#5 Comment By LouisM On August 2, 2016 @ 9:42 am

I love reading Pat Buchanan for the sobriety and sanity and clarity that he brings to his articles.

Who in Europe is going to defend the Baltics or the Central European nations?
-when Scandinavian and Western and Southern European nations refuse to spend the minimum % of their GDP for their own defense.
-when the rest of Europe cannot even defend itself from an unarmed invasion of economic migrants.
-when the average replacement ratio for native Europeans is 1.3 meaning native Europeans and Russians will halve their population every generation (20 years). Who has the population to spare to fight a war.

Lets be clear, a war for what and for whom? For economic stimulus? A war for political ideology which if fought will only deplete the population faster and open the door to population replacement by economic migrants.

Russia and NATO and Europe have far bigger problems internally and externally that this constant internecine bickering.

#6 Comment By Georginadavenport On August 2, 2016 @ 9:57 am

Diplomacy was what President Obama pursued, in regard to Ukraine, Syria, and what did your party said, “Obama is weak!” Even then, President Obama did not announce to the world that he would forsake Estonia or NATO, or professed admiration for the dictatorial Putin. He continued steadfast with the economic sanctions against Russia in cooperation with EU.Do you seriously think Trump would be capable of that?

Be careful what you ask for Buchanan. The peace president that you think Trump is might just launch the first nuclear bomb the minute that he perceives a spite from, probably Putin, who is so clearly inching for the third world war.

#7 Comment By Don Quixote On August 2, 2016 @ 10:05 am

Let’s send Buchanan over to Estonia to convince Ilves that he’s better off without the NATO alliance. Russia will honor Estonia’s territorial integrity, guaranteed. Buchanan can point to Ukraine as an example of how well that deal works.

#8 Comment By ML On August 2, 2016 @ 11:03 am

So what? We have to look at the big picture for once. The big picture is: The US and Russia are the world’s two most powerful non-Islamic nations. If we work together, maybe, just maybe, we have a chance against the juggernaut of the Islamic diaspora. If we are divided, we die.

As far as Europe goes, I couldn’t care less if Russia turns every bit of it into a nuclear waste dump. Western Europe is basically part of the Islamic work, and is thus basically on the wrong side. Eastern Europe and the Baltic states too powerless to be either helpful or harmful to the United States- so there is no reason for us to be concerned with what happens there.

#9 Comment By Viriato On August 2, 2016 @ 11:18 am

@Don Quixote:

Well, if we hadn’t overthrown Ukraine’s legitimate government, Russia would not have violated Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

#10 Comment By Mr. Libertarian On August 2, 2016 @ 11:33 am

Obama should’ve kept his trap shut on Assad early in 2011 and 2012, and let Assad crush the rebellion. Things would be much better today.

#11 Comment By Mr. Libertarian On August 2, 2016 @ 11:40 am

Great article Mr. Buchanan. Agreed. Don’t look now but Trump succeeded where other failed, in crafting a realist foreign policy doctrine, ousting the neocons/liberal interventionists, and point out to the world that American interests come first and foremost. It is refreshing after the foreign policy confusion and disasters of the Bush/Obama era.

#12 Comment By Pace On August 2, 2016 @ 12:08 pm

Georginadavenport wrote:

“…Putin, who is so clearly inching for the third world war.”

Do you have evidence? Don’t you think that this kind of statements require some evidence?

Don Quixote wrote:

“…Buchanan can point to Ukraine as an example of how well that deal works.”

What about Ukraine? We sponsored a coup, overthrew an elected government and installed right next door to Russia an anti-Russian regime, which employed its military to kill its own citizens.

Note: I read tons of articles during the Ukraine crisis from a variety of sources including American mainstream media. It is not my intention to discuss this subject further. Simply wanted to express my disagreement with your comment here.

Here is a reader’s comment on Mr. Rod Dreher’s article “Trump Has A Point On Russia Hack”, which I think is relevant.

“Put Trump, Hillary, and Vlad together in a room … only one of them is prudent, shrewd and cautious of reckless rhetoric. Unfortunately, that person ain’t an American.

I’m a vet who loves this country, but kudos to Putin for relentlessly pursuing his nation’s best interests. Given Hillary’s foolhardy record as SecState, can’t say I blame him for taking a gamble on Trump’s “reset button” … what does Russia have to lose?”

#13 Comment By Murali On August 2, 2016 @ 12:14 pm

Ok to all the nay sayers, I have a question. It goes like this. Suppose Mrs. Clinton is the President on Jan 2017 and for jollies Putin the Hitler invades Latvia, Estonia all the Baltic states in one scoop. Since the experienced and nuanced Mrs. Clinton is in power what are your expectations? 1000 soldiers in these states will not hold the brutal dictator back that is for sure. Does she send 100,000 US soldiers with all the back up and start a “Shock and Awe” ala Bush and Hitler Putin is just going to fold? Will the nukes start flying? If so who is safe? Moscow? Kalingrad? and if in retaliation Hitler Putin already said he will be the first to hit. So are we safe in NY? Chicago? Los Angeles? Paris? Berlin?
Is it not better to stop kinder garden behavior calling names to the leaders of nations ( nuclear armed ). Where is Condi when we need her? Remember “Mushroom clouds by non existent WMD’s by Saddam” What happened to our sanity when we threaten a guy with a whole load of them? Are we taking leave of our senses? Just curious

#14 Comment By Karel On August 2, 2016 @ 12:22 pm

During the Cold War, it made sense to protect the democracy/freedom against the aggressive, expansionist, communist CCCP. Then, they were the evil on earth. Since the suicide of the communist east, this “policing of world” is largely resented by the protected. Today, Europe, South Korea and Japan are richer than the US, and should protect themselves. Today, the evil in the world is terrorist Islam, and the Europeans, and also Americans, let, actually invite, the enemy into the house without a peep. Why do we need armies, when we need police forces and border patrols to fight the Islamists and terrorists?

#15 Comment By bacon On August 2, 2016 @ 1:17 pm

I think Trump is a feckless buffoon, but as a retired Army veteran with service in Viet Nam I also think wars of choice are about as bad as it gets. A conundrum.

#16 Comment By NorEastern On August 2, 2016 @ 1:26 pm

I do find it odd that people somehow believe any US president would not respond in some way to a Russian invasion of NATO countries. The only question is what is the minimal US response that is necessary.

The minimal response is much less than than most would believe. It would be five B-2 bombers and a squadron F-22s and a squadron of F-35s and one AWACS platform. The F-35s would go in at thirty feet and use HARM missiles to take out every radar site in the area. The F-22s would provide air space superiority and the B-2s would drop thousands of cluster bombs. It will be all over in 72 hours because no nation on earth has a defense against stealth.

And Putin understands this. He could move a dozen S-500 missile batteries onto the battlefield and it would not make a difference. He therefore will not invade a NATO nation. It would mean the certain humiliation of Putin and Russia.

#17 Comment By Dusan Radosavljevic On August 2, 2016 @ 1:37 pm

Only the imbeciles will ever contemplate a war. A winnable nuclear war is conceived only in the heads of totally mindless, for anybody and everybody engaging in it (or not) will either perished or be vanquished with, most probably, no chance of any meaningful recovery ever.

#18 Comment By Brendan Sexton On August 2, 2016 @ 1:42 pm

Trump is not a ‘peace candidate’–look at his words about China for the most obvious counter to that notion.
No, his ‘peacemaking’ efforts extend only, uniquely, to Russia.
It is time for his supporters to recognize that he is looking for some special deal with Putin. Why is that? what is the ‘deal’ he hopes to work out with Putin? Are we sure it is not related to his business interests? Without the tax returns, this is harder to answer than it should be. But someone should be asking.

#19 Comment By Eric On August 2, 2016 @ 1:49 pm

I don’t understand how legitimate non-interventionists or realists like Pat Buchanan can possibly throw their weight behind Donald Trump. Though some of his public statements and positions point towards a less interventionist foreign policy, his character and temperament give us no reasons to actually believe that he is “the Peace Candidate.” He’s an unstable buffoon who changes his opinions on a whim. His statements on the war in Syria have changed drastically as the campaign has gone on. How a politician acts in office is not only dictated by what he advocates for on paper.

However, I am grateful that Trump has opened up the foreign policy debate on the Right. It appears that Republican candidates can more easily deviate from neoconservative orthodoxy than once was true. This should give pro-peace advocates all the more reason to avoid Donald Trump’s sinking ship and wait for a peace candidate that also happens to be temperamentally fit for the highest office in the land.

#20 Comment By Don Quixote On August 2, 2016 @ 2:38 pm

@Viriato

I think you prove my point. There is no way Estonia would withdraw from NATO in exchange for a practically worthless promise from Russia.

#21 Comment By Will Porter On August 2, 2016 @ 3:30 pm

@Eric

These are my thoughts exactly.

Trump’s statements on foreign policy shouldn’t be trusted, but they do have some symbolic and instrumental value.

Even the appearance of dissent from the DC consensus should be welcomed, especially if it helps to shift the lines of debate among right wingers.

#22 Comment By mrscracker On August 2, 2016 @ 3:37 pm

“With Democrats howling that Vladimir Putin hacked into and leaked those 19,000 DNC emails to help Trump, the Donald had a brainstorm: Maybe the Russians can retrieve Hillary Clinton’s lost emails.

Not funny, and close to “treasonous,” came the shocked cry.’
**********************************
It was a funny comment, but most of the media aired it apart from his preceding comments which put it in context. Which is typical of the media.
And “treason”? Please. I’m not a Trump supporter but that’s really something coming from the Democrats. You can sacrifice 4 American lives in Libya to not upset an election & devise ridiculous stories about it, but jokes about Russia are treason?

#23 Comment By RMThoughts On August 2, 2016 @ 4:44 pm

How long can Russia and China wait before they conclude that they have to pre-empt the coming attack from Washington? Does anyone, even stupid Americans, think that once Russia and China are convinced that they are targets for attack that they will just sit there and await the attack?

Do peoples as guilty of dereliction of duty as Western peoples are have any right to survive?

#24 Comment By Egypt Steve On August 2, 2016 @ 5:06 pm

I agree with PB that it has been a mistake to expand NATO into the former Warsaw Pact, and that it would be foolish to go to war over the Baltic States or the Ukraine. That said, the question of whether we do go to war with Russia over those or other former Soviet/East Bloc territories is a question of what our national interest is — not whether or how much we get paid for doing so. The armed forces of the United States Army are not a gang of mercenaries. Or at least, they’re not supposed to be. Trump seems to view them that way.

#25 Comment By Viriato On August 2, 2016 @ 9:04 pm

@Don Quixote:

Well, I can’t argue with you re: Estonia. The specific proposal Pat makes at the end of this article is utterly unrealistic. NATO expansion was a mistake, but there’s no reversing it at this point.

What needs to be accomplished urgently is a cooling of tensions between the U.S. and Russia, followed by a restoration of trust between these two nuclear powers.

That ain’t gonna happen if the U.S. insists on placing nuclear weapons on Russia’s borders and on overthrowing governments near Russia’s borders and replacing them with anti-Russian regimes. If Russia engaged in these kinds of shenanigans in the Americas, I think we’d feel threatened. That was my point. That and my belief that unless Estonia provokes Russia in some way (as Georgia did in 2008) or we provoke Russia via Estonia (as we did with Ukraine in 2014), Russia will not attack Estonia (or anyone else for that matter).

#26 Comment By Confused On August 3, 2016 @ 4:18 am

I don’t see how Mr Buchanan can in good conscience recommend a candidate who has said that he is ‘the most militaristic person there is’ as the peace candidate. And the specific circumstance he described (Russian aggression) has taken place and Trump has described Obama’s reaction as too ‘weak’, so we must assume Trump’s reaction will be stronger, whatever that means.

#27 Comment By The The On August 3, 2016 @ 5:05 am

Thank you Pat! Its time to exit NATO…

#28 Comment By A.J. Kinnamamn On August 3, 2016 @ 7:21 am

A very erratic vessel to carry your ideological water in.

And what water. For this old school American firster, it is nothing to him if a united Europe collapses and nationalist parties rise in its place, along with the influence of Putin’s Russia.

#29 Comment By libertarian jerry On August 3, 2016 @ 11:40 am

Good Article Pat. War is a racket,so said General Smedly Butler. 1st.follow the money. The Military Industrial Complex needs enemies or potential enemies to further feather their economic nests. Next,Russia has been invaded several times over the centuries. During the 1st and 2nd World wars Russia lost millions of her citizens. Therefore Russia needs buffer states between her and the West. Isn’t it prudent to have these states neutral. Next,why is it in the interests of America to involve ourselves in foreign entanglements that the nations founders worried so much about? Why should we involve ourselves in NATO when the Cold War has been over for a quarter of a century?
In the end how does this reckless foreign policy benefit the average American when a miscalculation by the sociopath,megalomaniac politicians and elitists who run our country could cause a nuclear holocaust that could destroy the world? We should,instead,stop poking the nose of the Russian Bear and sit down together and work out a plan that would keep us and Russia safe and,forever,stuff the nuclear war genie back into its bottle.

#30 Comment By Don Quixote On August 3, 2016 @ 1:08 pm

“If Russia engaged in these kinds of shenanigans in the Americas, I think we’d feel threatened.”

Ever hear of Wikileaks? Ed Snowden?

All talk of Russia being “provoked” or “threatened” is pure propaganda. Why don’t we speak of Poland being provoked or threatened? Or Ukraine? Latvia? Is Russia the only country with feelings?
🙂
Putin is aggressively pursuing his goals using the means at his disposal.

#31 Comment By Liam On August 3, 2016 @ 1:13 pm

Re Joe Scarborough’s reportage on Trump’s asking about why can’t we use nuclear weapons in his briefings:

Go down to #1 and read up to #20

[2]

#17 is key.

#32 Comment By Dr. Diprospan On August 3, 2016 @ 2:15 pm

Good, deep article Mr. Buchanan. Anxiety is felt in the world like before the storm.
It has long been observed that patients with chronic disease noted one annoying feature of their disease: that no matter how they took care of themselves, no matter what means are used to prevent the disease, once or twice a year their disease returns anyway.
This can be every fall or spring. Why is this happening? God knows.
Probably chronic viral infection cyclically multiplies in this way and people only nutrient substrate for it. In this analogy, I fear that humanity is not always the subject, but often it becomes an object for exposure as a wheat field where plasma formations create figures:[3]
Only in the case of humanity, people perform the role of the wheat crop.
Plasmoid formation are inclined to the creation of fractal shapes in space and time.
For example, Russian nesting doll a sample of fractal figure, that is, when inside a wooden doll sitting the same, but slightly different doll – smaller and a different color.
World of plasma formations is obviously very complex. Perhaps their world can be integrated into our form of life of the protein. In fact, the nerve impulse has much in common with plasma formations in nature. That is why, it seems to me that suggestion of President Ronald Reagan, at the UN General Assembly 42 in 1987, that perhaps we are not alone, may be the most significant political statement of the 20th century.
The appearance of the film in 2006 of plasma formations in the official and conservative 1st TV channel Russia could not have happened without the permission of the country’s top leadership. The film tells in particular that the Ministry of Defence of the USSR was prepared instructions to commanders of warships and submarines, how to behave when meeting with a plasma formation.[4]
If you look closely, the fractal shape can be seen in the current confrontation. Judge for yourself:
1812 – France dreams of world domination, and invaded Russia. The war ends in Paris. Peaceful period …
1941 – Germany dreams of a great Reich, decides to invade Russia. The war ends in a ruined Berlin. Peaceful period …
2016 – United States together with the satellites came close to Russian borders
and dreams of world domination by means of democracy. The circle closes in Brussels or Washington? Peaceful period …
President Putin really feels that all the events unfold on the usual for Russia negative scenario, but how to get away from it – is unclear:[5]
Will Donald Trump to keep the peace on the planet? – We will know soon.
Sometimes it seems to me no matter what president in Russia and the United States, no matter how strong is the US, and how weak Russia, the events already planned by a third force …
One popular Russian singer, who feels good political mood sings about how boring, dull and fragmented Russians live. What can we do to come together and have fun?
Perhaps the people of the city of Washington will help us – they too bored there and dreaming of great entertainment. So do not get bored, soon we will put on our hats – with earflaps, take the balalaika and come to you with a large bear on a tour in the tank.
There will be a lot of fun for all …[6]
Many Russian are fatalists, they like to say that what is to be will be.
Personally, I like the other Russian saying: God helps those who help themselves.
We must continue to look for any option that will help prevent WW III.

#33 Comment By mrscracker On August 3, 2016 @ 2:23 pm

A.J. Kinnamamn says:
A very erratic vessel to carry your ideological water in.”
********************************
It’s not as if there’s a wide selection of vessels available.

#34 Comment By OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL On August 3, 2016 @ 7:04 pm

Um, hello John S, “the experience of Crimea”. You mean the experience where they held a national referendum that was widely acknowledged as fair, where 82% of the population voted to rejoin Russia, and which was accomplished without a single shot fired?
But then you’re probably also certain that “Putin shot the Malaysian airliner down”. Maybe when we get to hear the control tower tapes, and the cockpit tapes, and find out what the black box said, then we can all find out. Um wait, we haven’t got any of that info yet? Gee I wonder why not…those are all over CNN hours after every single other plane crash…
But carry on. Putin bad! He so bad! He bad man, look how bad!

#35 Comment By Alan On August 3, 2016 @ 7:53 pm

Wow….lots of folks here are drinking the MSM koolaide.

Remind me again which country currently has troops in countries all over the globe? Remind me again which country lead a coup in Kiev to install a puppet govt? Remind me again which country is sending missiles into Poland and Romania? Remind me again which country is conducting naval exercises in the Baltic Sea right now? But yet, somehow, Russia is the aggressor??? Sorry, did I miss something?

#36 Comment By brians On August 3, 2016 @ 11:00 pm

I agree that U.S. policy toward Russia is perfectly insane, and absurdly antagonistic, but Trump isn’t the answer. Sorry, Pat. I agree with you on principles, but you’re abandoning yours if you support this knucklehead. Why not a 3rd party run yourself?

Article printed from
The American Conservative:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com

[1] The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0553418637/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0553418637&linkCode=as2&tag=theamericonse-20&linkId=JYQKUUKGSN3Z4U25